Letters to Editor

MEASURED GROWTH

In response to Aug. 2 letter, “Tortoise on a mission”:

I would like to send a compliment to Diane Peters for submitting her nice comments about the recent saga of the desert tortoise that was found near the Oro Valley Town Hall. I know she was sincere in expressing her rediscovery of her “faith in mankind.”

However, in true form, Ms. Peters suffered a relapse back into her typical cave mode, pun intended.  She went on to say, referring to the tortoise, “rampant development that is destroying his once beautiful desert surroundings.” Ms. Peters is quite well known for her, ‘I’m here, so shut the door to everyone else.’ attitude.

What is really humorous about her response is that several weeks ago, Ms. Peters submitted a picture of a bobcat on the back wall of her property. That might indicate that the bobcat actually has adapted quite well to the measured growth of Oro Valley and in fact has decided to ‘move in’ and raise a family here in beautiful Oro Valley. 

 — Don Cox

 

 

No more taxes

While the $1 million investment in the golf course properties may have looked like a very good deal at the time, it clearly is turning out to be a very costly proposition with no solution in sight. I appreciate that the council and Mmayor are working hard to make Oro Valley successful and financially sound. The budget numbers are not working out and the deficit is growing rapidly. The financial numbers are very bad with a $2.3 million deficit for the first year of operation and repeated, the second year, and there are still hundreds of thousands to be spent to improve the     properties.

Options A, B and C are offering steps in the right direction, however there is no mention of how these huge multimillion dollar expenses would be paid for and if they indeed would turn things around. This purchase of the golf properties is bleeding profusely and clearly this will continue for some years. You have not offered any timeline to stop the losses.

There should be an option D, to unload these properties in their entirety and cut the losses, not that this would be better than the above options, but should certainly be considered. A developer would buy them at market price and develop and operate them at a profit or not. At the same time Oro Valley would benefit from building permit fees, increased property taxes and any other charges to the developer and subsequent homebuyers.

I would submit that the responsibility of the town is to show financial responsibility and submit to the voters exactly what must be done to turn this around. I do not want to subsidize golf courses as I do not golf and if I wanted to, I don’t think I could afford the luxury.

At this time you are proposing a $17 million expenditure (bond) for the Naranja Park. How can you possibly propose this with all this red ink for the golf course properties.?I might possibly vote for the bond, but not until the golf course problem is put right.

Elections are coming, the only real power I have is who I vote for. I will be voting for those candidates that show that they will fix this financial debacle.

— Bob Cuthbertson

 

Supporting annexation

I support Oro Valley’s annexation of the state lands along Moore and Tangerine Roads, for one simple reason: local control over trusting the (distant) state of Arizona. 

At least locally we can apply legally established development covenants, while with the state, “it’s a box of chocolates, you never know what you’ll get” from insider deals cooked-up in Phoenix. For instance, suppose down the road, the state signs off on something that’s a total anathema to the citizens of Oro Valley? 

Then we have to go to court ($ ka-ching $), and risk the ruling that what OV seeks is an “unlawful property taking” by government (more $ ka-ching $, $ ka-ching $). Local control of these issues is the best.

— Bill Sellers

 

More Questions

In reference to Aug. 9 article “New Hope”:

 It is good to hear veterans have a new court program that is more efficient and helpful. However, the jump from paragraph three where PTSD and brain injuries were mentioned into the courts being flooded in paragraph four was a big disconnect.  

The rest of the article that described the program implied that all these vets needed was a judicial system and its volunteers to hold their feet to the fire on improving their functioning and general behavior. It echoed the attitude that criminalizing those suffering from the trauma of war (as we currently do with our mentally ill, homeless and substance abusers) was the way to go.

Why is there an increase in court cases due to injured veterans? What kind of treatment do vets with PTSD or traumatic brain injury get beyond a mentor? Although research shows that EMDR (Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing) is the most effective for PTSD, it is seldom offered through the VA.

The article raised more questions for me than it answered. Some more detail and a description of people who might best fit this program would be helpful.

— Anne Dalton, M.P.H.

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.